Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site lanl-a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg
From: jlg@lanl-a.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.music.classical,net.music
Subject: Re: In defense of `What is music, anyway?'
Message-ID: <7098@lanl-a.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-May-84 21:54:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl-a.7098
Posted: Fri May 11 21:54:26 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 13-May-84 09:50:31 EDT
References: <240@uwvax.ARPA>, <629@pyuxn.UUCP>, <1191@proper.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 15
Keywords: music,nature,mankind,noise

iiii

This whole discussion about whether music requires human intervention is easily
solved.  If you believe that there is an objective criterion by which something
can be categorized as music, then clearly humans don't have to be involved in 
creating it.  Unfortunately, I think that there is no such objective criterion.
Since the decision is purely subjective, then obviously human intervention IS 
required -- that is, someone must subjectively say 'this is music'.  Even the 
person who said that birdsong is music is making a subjective judgement,  once
again there's a human in the selection process.  Is birdsong 'music' to the
birds?  Probably not, since most of it is mating calls and territorial declar-
ations.

Without humans, sound is merely sound.  Humans make the distinction between
noise and music.